@Jenova + any other theorycraftersFollow

The multiplier definition is true or false depending on the way you choose to look at the way CoA does damage, so I would never be as bold as to criticise someone who chose to use that terminology without first ensuring I was completely sure I understood the context in which they were using it.

Of the 12 CoA ticks - the 1st 4 do 1/6th of the total damage, the 2nd 4 ticks do 2/6ths of the total damage, and the final 4 ticks do 3/6ths of the total damage. In this view it is acceptable to claim there is a multiplier - with respect to the initial tick. It's simply down to which frame of reference you choose to use.

I personally wouldn't describe it like that - but as usual the undergeared and overconfident Jenovamega is as contrary as ever.

Now of course, I get to come in here and do some nitpicking of my own. I would never describe CoA as having skewered damage. I think that's an example of poorly placed of terminology. I would simply describe it as ascending or incremental damage.




I don't know who your contact is in Blizzard who told you this, but I doubt very much that this was blizzards motivation behind "making math easy". Blizzard choose the mechanics of the spell and a piece of code works out the numbers. Blizzard don't choose to make things easier or hard. It is just so.

it's my opinion - I'm allowed it, and I'm in a respectable enough position to give it ;)
Just for your information - just about every other guild is on felmyst at the moment. It's not as much an achievment as you think it is.




No I am not, I didn't say anything different from the above.



Take it from me, you'll have more self-respect for making you're way to KJ the hard way.

I'm usually quiet on these board these days, but occasionally I see you throwing your weight around and I'll always be here to read you the riot act.

skewed (sorry, my mistake, misspelt it as skewered everytime) is also a mathmatical term used to describe something that isn't evenly balanced. usually it's used in normal distribution graphs to demonstrate how the graph looks.

and wings, I haven't been missing the point of the multiplier. I've been saying exactly what you just said about it being a multiplier of 2 for 2nd ticks(200%) or 3 for 3rd ticks(300%) at 0+SP in relation to the first tick, but that the multiplier decreases as you increase your +SP, so making the multiplier pretty much useless for working out anything. the fact that there's a real definate multiplier (or ratio as kbd put it) for 0+SP is pretty much useless for every warlock in the game due to the multiplier varying as you increase your +SP (and every lock has over 0 +SP now). hence why I keep on trying to point out how useless the multiplier is other than for determining what the base ticks of CoA are

Edited, Sep 25th 2008 9:28am by Jenovaomega

then it's either an error in your way of typing, or my way of reading. but regardless one of us screwed up in either interpretation or our expecations of how we presume others to interprete our words.

you didn't say that until alot later on, after which point I accepted that you had finally seen things my way. beyond that point we've been on the same page. just because you're ignoring everything you and I said before that point doesn't suddenly mean that I was having troubles interpretting you

i just HAVE to prove that i'm right (though if someone crushes my idea and proves that I'm wrong, I will admit so). the fact is that if someone brings up something that's irrelevant, even if they say they know it's irrelevant, the simple fact that they're bringing it up shows that they believe it still has SOME relevance. so I see it as my duty to crush that idea. granted you should feel honoured by this. I usually won't argue or even talk with someone unless I feel they're interesting enough for it to be worthwhile for me to waste my time on them. (i'm not trying to make it sound like i think i'm a god or anything, it's just that most people are normal and boring, so i generally try to keep away from interacting with them)

Edited, Sep 25th 2008 10:08am by Jenovaomega

what's not good about being told "you're different in an interesting way to rest of the sheep"? (not trying to prove myself right, just simply curious) and I understood that you were after a way of comparing the 'multiplier' from 0+SP to the one of say... 1000+SP.. but as I've said, the rate of change isn't a nice one to work out.

I agree, it's why I hardly visit this forum anymore. I can't stand to see a medicore warlock nitpicking such trivial issues. It really does no good at all. What I always noticed about Jenova is that he is probably an angry young man who reads posts very quickly and either (a) misses vital information (b) assumes things that have been omitted (c) doesn't try to comprehend what people may have stated inaccurately.

It leads situations like the classic example above, where he accused me of misunderstanding the CoA mechanics because I had stated the basic damage split of the spell. He then responded by saying I was in the wrong because the (1/6 2/6 3/6) split is inaccurate after spell damage is taken into account.

He launched into an accusation before even clarifying whether I had been intending to highlight the base part of the spell or not. He just assumed he knew the point I was making when I hadn't even clarified it.

Jenova is just an angry young man, probably held back in many areas of his life both by forces outside and some inside his control. I've seen the profile, and I can guess what some of those forces outside his control are. I can also guess - from his posts - what some of those forces inside his control are. I would advise him to take a much more concilatory approach, and to read all posts twice and read what has been said - and more importantly - what hasn't been said.




Edited, Sep 25th 2008 11:01am by kbd

Arrogant, adjective: making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud

There is everything wrong with being arrogant.

Elitsm, noun: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

Another category you seem to be fitting in quite well.

Edited, Sep 25th 2008 9:07am by wingsofscion

actually, my guild has stopped raiding until wotlk, also I've been asked to join sotg's for the past 4 months because they consider me an equal in ability and desire but i've said no every time due to wanting to stick to my mates in NH and wanting to experience progress first hand. but simply put because NH have stopped raiding, the only way for me to progress is to jump ship. nothing wrong with doing that at all seeing as my primary intention was to see the end of SWP. If i'm in a different guild it also doesn't stop my mates from the previous guild being mates, just stops me from raiding with them.
you're trying to make me seem like a heartless b.astard, also that '4th div. footballer' would only be allowed into man.U if he was skilled enough, and so deserving to also lift that cup (maybe not lift it this season, but come next season, due to being considered an equal even before joining them, lifting the next cup with them and being deserving is more than possible.

also about the arrogance/elitism

"Arrogant, adjective: making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud

There is everything wrong with being arrogant.

Elitsm, noun: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. "

going by these definitions, I'm not arrogant. I don't claim to be of superior importance, overbearingly assuming or insolently proud as my claims come with evidence to prove their truth. I've proved plenty of times since I started posting on here that I do possess a superior knowledge of the game and class than most people and that I do spend more time in a useful manor to advance both my knowledge and the knowledge of others on here.


about elitism, what's wrong with believing (or imo, knowing) that certain people are more deserving. people aren't equal in terms of intellect or achievements. I do though agree that elitism is wrong when based on social status, race, gender or other facts that don't affect their ability to achieve their best in the topic at hand (WoW). now, for example, if we were talking about people living the longest then intellect and achievements are irrelevant.. but race and gender become relevant. simply put elitism, if based on relevant aspects, it nothing to be ashamed of.

Claiming that I should be "honored" to be engaged in discussion with you is also in the same right that you are of superior importance or quality in comparison to myself and others. Therefore, arrogant. Every discussion I've had with you has been loaded with things of an argumentative nature. I'm not opposed to debate or the like, but I do not wish to engage in discussion where the assumption is going to be that I'm wrong from the get-go. If the discussion is a matter of opinion, there is no right or wrong to begin with (example, I dislike Koraa - you are not going to sway me of this opinion, and it is neither right nor wrong to dislike Koraa), and you shouldn't take a stance to try and prove my opinion one way or the other; I don't seek your approval.



Which is all fine and well, but doing it in a manner that is either degrading to others or assumes an air of condescension is not the way to go about it. Instead, if you wish to teach others of the way that they could improve their knowledge, you should do it in a way that not only people understand, but also in a way that shows you are willing to do so, instead of coming off like you are rubbing your nose at them like they should know better.



The fact that it's a game is reason enough for me. Being an elitist over a damned game is the most retarded thing ever. Moreso when we're talking math and/or PvE content. Arena ... okay, I can understand to a point. But overall, arena isn't a good example because there are too many factors that can make or break an arena game.

Edited, Sep 25th 2008 10:37am by wingsofscion

I never said that you should be honoured to be in a conversation with me. I said you should be honoured that I consider you interesting, and not because it's from me, but because you are interesting (or at least your online persona if you want to look at it that way). granted I do believe that my knowledge of WoW (don't know you in rl so no idea about rl) is superior to yours, and almost everyone on here. the idea of "not wanting to enter into a topic with the knowledge that you're wrong from the get-go" is simply your own fault. you were wrong from the get go and simply put you have 1 of two choices.. 1. handle it as you are currently.. or 2. learn from your mistakes, and come to the next topic with actually having researched the topic, which'll lead to one of two things. either you'll help me with my discussion if I'm right, or you'll beat me down if I'm wrong.

I agree with the 'matter of opinion' thing, heck I even said it in one of my previous messages that opinion can't be argued against (granted if your matter of opinion was on a technical issue, then if it is wrong the topic would change from a matter of opinion topic to a technical one, but the same can be said for if I had an incorrect opinion on a technical issue).

about my 'style' of teaching. simply put everyone is different. the way I type is the way I am in real life too, I'm ridiculously blunt and harsh, I love to argue (debate), though I'll generally try and keep it to constructive conversations. and I am ruthless, I see no reason to hold back (I consider it a form of lieing..and with the execption of 1 situation, I will either not lie or simply not answer the question if I believe the answer is to harsh for the person listening... which in itself is still harsh).

so yeah, this is how I teach, i push people to confront me and push them to want to prove me wrong, because there's very few things in this world as sweet as revenge that also drives you to achieve your goal (quoting.. god knows how many films there.. lol).

nothing wrong with being elitist over a hobby. people do it every day in physical or mental hobbies (football/tennis/chess etc...) online games are very quickly being accepted into the realms of hobbies that you can take to seriously without it being considered a waste of time. about the arena part. I never stated "had to win", never stated even that you'd be fighting.. just simply stated it as an example of one of the times when you get to many outside effects onto the equation of CoA for you to rely on the multiplier between ticks.